(08-05-2014 10:56 AM)natachan Wrote: By MY standard, raping children is wrong since it is contrary to the objective (to us) value of human life and well-being. By YOUR standard, it depends on whether or not God says it's ok.

-- which is the next thing I was going to bring up: YOU can't claim an objective morality", because you base that "morality" on the purported whims and caveats of YOUR flighty, capricious fairy tale monster (which really is to say, on the whims of the stone-and-iron-age goatfuckers who devised it -- along with all the philanderers, pedophiles and perverts that have succeeded them up to today )and used it as their mouthpiece). That isn't an OBJECTIVE standard at all -- not by a LONG shot.

Your "morality" isn't OBJECTIVE at all. Not a bit.

Oh, and fuck you, and fuck your Big Hero WLC. You can tell him I said that personally, while you are catching your breath from sucking his asshole clean.

Aside from that, you need to provide a context for where the definitions of "moral", "immoral", and "amoral" are coming from.

Of course, you will then try to say you don't want a context because this is supposed to be "objective". The problem with that is you are starting with "objective" and then trying to prove morality is "objective" within that framework. That's circular. Another problem is we can't reasonably discuss those three terms without the subjective definitions.

So now what?

If that is the case, then objectivity goes out the window when I ask you about anything. For example if I were to ask you what shape the earth was then I throw objectivity out the window in asking you this. According to you there is no objectively correct answer.

(08-05-2014 10:59 AM)Impulse Wrote: As soon as you asked about "you", objectivity went out the window...

Aside from that, you need to provide a context for where the definitions of "moral", "immoral", and "amoral" are coming from.

Of course, you will then try to say you don't want a context because this is supposed to be "objective". The problem with that is you are starting with "objective" and then trying to prove morality is "objective" within that framework. That's circular. Another problem is we can't reasonably discuss those three terms without the subjective definitions.

So now what?

If that is the case, then objectivity goes out the window when I ask you about anything. For example if I were to ask you what shape the earth was then I throw objectivity out the window in asking you this. According to you there is no objectively correct answer.

Fail

Strawman much, asshole? Equivocate much?

When your fairy tale book -- actually the stone-and-iron-age goatfuckers who wrote it -- tells you that something is moral "because gawd said so", that's not objective at all. That's SUBJECTIVE to the whims of your mythical gawd-character. The one who is purported to advocate genocide, child rape, incest, and a host of other horrific actions that BY ANY REASONABLE STANDARD are immoral.

You need to address this, because if you don't, anyone and everyone here will known what a hypocritical, deluded, willfully ignorant pathological liar you are.

(08-05-2014 12:55 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote: If that is the case, then objectivity goes out the window when I ask you about anything. For example if I were to ask you what shape the earth was then I throw objectivity out the window in asking you this. According to you there is no objectively correct answer.

Fail

Strawman much, asshole? Equivocate much?

When your fairy tale book -- actually the stone-and-iron-age goatfuckers who wrote it -- tells you that something is moral "because gawd said so", that's not objective at all. That's SUBJECTIVE to the whims of your mythical gawd-character. The one who is purported to advocate genocide, child rape, incest, and a host of other horrific actions that BY ANY REASONABLE STANDARD are immoral.

You need to address this, because if you don't, anyone and everyone here will known what a hypocritical, deluded, willfully ignorant pathological liar you are.

you think lying is bad, liars think its awesome. in your world both views are true.

you might think pedophilia is wrong. the pedophile thinks its awesome. in your world both views are true.

thats my point.

Fail

No, they're not. We are human animals. The logical objective standard of morality for us is human life and human well-being. By this standard pedophilia is wrong. It doesn't matter what the pedophile thinks, his world view contradicts the objective one of his species. Period.

A morality that is based off a moral law giver is not objective. It is based off the whims of some other being. This is SUBJECTIVE.